S THOMAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravindran, learned counsel representing M/s. T. S. Gopalan, appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Technician employed by the second respondent company and he was in charge of Boiler duties. He was also elected as Vice President of the Manali Petrochemicals Technical Employees' Union formed in 1993. During 1996, he was made as General Secretary of the said Union. Since the settlement between the Union and the second respondent Management had ended in the December 2000, a new Charter of Demands was placed by the Union before the second respondent. Since the direct talks failed between the parties, a dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer during the year 2003. It is alleged that in order to pressurize the workers, permanent employees working in the boilers, water treatment plant, Milk of lime plant and Fort Lift Operation were transferred to the main plant and in the place held by them, the second respondent attempted to engage contract workers. The petitioner was transferred from boiler plant to Propylene Glycol Plant which involves in hazarduous operation. Therefore, a dispute was raised against the transfer of permanent employees and the same was referred for adjudication by the Principal Labour Court and it was taken on file as I. D. No. 505 of 2005.

(3.) HOWEVER, the second respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by an order dated 22. 9. 2003 stating that he was guilty of insubordination of the lawful orders of the superiors. An enquiry was conducted and show cause notice dated 25. 10. 2004 was issued to him. Despite the petitioner replied to the show cause notice, no final orders have been passed for the last three years. Therefore, the Trade Union to which the petitioner belonged, raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai - 2. Upon a Failure Report being sent by the Officer, the first respondent State Government passed an order in G. O. (D) No. 1300 Labour and Employment Department dated 21. 12. 2005 refusing to refer the dispute. It is stated in the annexure to the said order that the dispute of temporary suspension cannot be considered as removal from service and since no punishment has been imposed, there is no necessity for the Government to refer the dispute for adjudication. The Trade Union filed an application for reviewing the order by a letter dated 25. 12. 2006 and the matter was once again taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Thereafter, the Trade Union was informed by a letter dated 22. 02. 2007 that there was no necessity to review the earlier order made in G. O. No. 1300 Labour and Employment Department dated 21. 12. 2005. Instead of the Trade Union challenging the said order, the petitioner in his individual capacity has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order.